
THE 

EPOCHS OF LANGUAGE 

IN GENERAL 

AND 

OF THE ENGLISH TONGUE 

ESPECIALLY. 



AN INAUGURAL DISSERTATION 

UPON OBTAINING THE DEGREE 

OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY AND MASTER OF ARTS 

IN THK 

UNIVERSITY OF GOTTINGEN 

BY THE REVEREND 

JAMES CLARK 

SENIOR CURATE OF ROTHERHAM YORKSHIRE 



GOTTINGEN 

PRINTED AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS BY W, FR, KAESTNER 

1866. 



^ >Css 






\ § CHAPTER I. 

';^ THE EPOCHS OF LANGUAGE. 

^ According' to one school of philologists , — language 

,r^-. has passed through three distinct stages : — First, a Radi- 
' cal or Monosyllabic stage represented by the Indo- 
Chinese group of idioms; Secondly an Ag gluiinative 
stage, represented by the Turanian family; and Thirdly — 
an Inflexional stage, represented by both the Aryan 
and Semitic families. 

It is contended that all inflected languages have pre- 
viously passed through an agglutinative stage, and that all 
agglutinative languages were previously radical, and mo- 
nosyllabic. Now that there is a generally observable morpho- 
logical distinction between the Turanian and the Indo-Eu- 
ropean and Semitic families of languages, cannot well be 
denied. There is a characteristic difl"erence, for example, 
between the structure of the Osmanlic or Magyar verb — 
for the Hungarian verb is a scarcely less remarkable and 
beautiful example of agglutination than the Turkic, and 
that of a Gothic or Pelasgic language. Take for the sake 
of illustration the following forms of the Hungarian verb 
verni = 1o beat: 

I. ver-ni ... to beat 

II. ver-het-ni . . to be able to beat 

III. ver et-ni . . to be beaten 

1 



IV. 


ver-ct-het-iii to be able to be beaten 


V. 


ver-eoci-ni to heal frequeutly 


VI. 


ver-degei-iii to beat frequently a little at a tinte 


VII. 


ver-int-ui . . to beat a little 


VIII 


. ver-cked-ui . to beat one another 


IX. 


ver-od-ni . . to beat oneself against anything 


X. 


ver-god-ni . . to beat through with difficulty 


XI. 


ver-tet ni . . to cause to beat. 




Now these, although beautiful examples of agglutina- 



tion, do not establish the exclusively agglutinative character 
of the language to which they may belong. Notwithstand- 
ing the highly agglutinative character of the conjugational 
systems af these, and other idioms of the Turanian family, 
it would still be more correct to say that they were ag- 
glutinativo-inflexional rather than purely agglutinative. The 
morphological difference between an Aryan and a Turanian 
language is not as great as some philologists are disposed 
to think. A distinction which is to furnish the basis of a 
classification — and above all of a natural classification, 
ought itself to be a distinction both well-defined and founded 
in nature. Does such distinction, therefore, exist between 
the so-called agglutinative idioms and those which are in- 
flexional? With all deference to the eminent scholarship 
of Dr. Max Miiller, and others of his school, we are dis- 
posed to answer in the negative. How does the Professor 
distinguish between these two classes of languages? „The 
chief distinction," he writes, „ between an inflexional and 
an agglutinative language consists in the fact that aggluti- 
native languages preserve the consciousness of their roots, 
and therefore do not allow them to be affected by phonetic 
corruption ; and though they have lost the consciousness of 
the original meaning of their terminations they feel di- 
stinctly the difference between the significative root and the 



modifying; elements. Not so in the inflexional languages. 
There the varions elements, which enter into the composi- 
tion of words may become so welded together, and suffer 
so much from phonetic corruption, that none but the edu- 
cated would be aware of an original distinction between 
root and termination, and none but the comparative gram- 
marian able to discover the seams which separate the com- 
ponent parts." — Science of Language Vol. I. pp. 337. 338. 
And again: — „The difference between an Aryan and a 
Turanian language is somewhat the same as between a 
good and bad mosaic. The Aryan words seem made of 
one piece, the Turanian words clearly show the sutures 
and fissures, where the small stones are cemented together." 
— The Science of Lang. Vol. L pp. 303. 304. But these 
surely are the distinctions rather of poetry than of science. 
There are surely here no sufficient morphological grounds 
upon which the languages of the Aryan and Scythian fa- 
milies should be separable into distinct classes, as inflexio- 
nal and agglutinative respectively. Upon the contrary, the 
two classes are essentially — despite admitted differences, 
one and the same. Phonetic corruption may, it is true, 
have more extensively affected the Aryan than the Scy- 
thian or Turanian languages; but upon the other hand, 
the Scythic are not exempted from the operation of a si- 
milar law. As Professor Dr. Henry Ewald in his Sprach- 
wissenschaftliche Abhand/ungen has indicated, Turanian 
words do not always show the „sutures and fissures." Al- 
though there is an admitted difference between these two 
great classes of languages as to the degree in which they 
admit of synthesis or agglutination, — yet are they alike 
in this that in their conjugational and in some cases even 
in their declensional systems the component linguistic ele- 
ments are welded together into a common mass, and are 

1* 



distinguishable only by the aid of the science of compara- 
tive grammar. What essential — we use the "word essen- 
tial designedly and deliberately, is there between the fol- 
lowing Turano-Turkic, and Aryano — Pelasgic grammatical 
forms ? 



The Turk says: — 






Present 


Preterite 


f):;'^ ~~ 


sever-i-m = I love 


j.o^.,A« — sever-di-m 


^^^^ — 


sever-sin 


S'^jY^ — sever-di-n 


^^^ — 


sever 


^0^^^ — sever-di 


J;^'" "~ 


sever-i-z 


jV^^jA- — sever-di-k 


;^'^}!s 


sever-siniz 


j^^j^^ — sever- di-niz 


.V - 


sever-ler 


Jo^^*^ — sever-di-ler 


The Latin says : — 






Present 


Preterite 




am-o 


am-av-i 




am-as 


am-av-isti 




am-at 


am-av-it 




am-amus 


am-av-imus 




am-atis 


am-av-isti s 




am- ant 


am-av- erunt 



W.ere is there, we ask, any essential morphological 
difference between these two sets of grammatical forms? 
In the Turkish, it will be said, there is a consciousness of 
the significative root as distinguished from the modifying 
element. Exactly so : — and if that is all , it is readily 
admitted. But may not the same observation be extended 
as much to the Latin as to the Turkish? The Latin was 
quite as conscious of the theme A M as distinguished from 
its modal, temporal, and pronominal terminations as is the 
Turk of the theme ^^ sec as distinguish from Us postfor- 



matives. And in the great majority of Aryan verbs the 
theme is in a similar manner consciously distinguished from 
the merely formative increment, whether postpositional or 
prepositional. Nor even in the case of those words which 
in the process of inflexion also admit of intromutation is 
there this supposed oblivion of the thematic element. Thus 
the Aryan recognizes the root or theme, as may be, as 
contradistinguished from the termination as much in eg-i 
I have done as in ag-o = / do; as much in re-tvcp-a 
as in Tvn-T-M; — nor is he less conscious of the root 
in the intromutative forms at-est, thoughi-est, and men 
than in the forms e at-est, thi(n)k-est , and ma?i. 

But further, it must be remembered that in the conju- 
gational systems of many of the Turanian languages pho- 
netic corruption has transpired in respect of the formative 
elements. It can not be denied that the following prono- 
minal terminations 





Singular 




Plural 






I. 2. 


3. 


1. 2. 


3. 


Turkish 


-m -n 


— 


-miz -niz 


— 


Esthonian 


-n -d 


-P 


-me -te 


-wad 


Magyar 


-m -sz 




-unk -tok 


-nak 


Tungusian 


-m -(n)di 


— 


-wun -sun 


-tin 



are phonetic corruptions — mere mutilations of earlier in- 
dependent forms. They are at least as much so as are 
the ordinary Aryan sufformatives. Whatever is maintained 
in the one case, must be maintained in the other. And 
the same criticism holds good as much in the case of the 
temporal as in that of the pronominal exponents. Has the 
preterital -t- in oma-Tns lost its original character, and 
been reduced like the -d in love-d to a mere increment? 
Has it, in a word, experienced phonetic corruption? Even 
so. As much must be maintained in respect of the Os~ 



6 

maulic preterital ^> d, the Tungusic -ca (= ta>, the Ma- 
p;yar -t or -d, the Finnish -t or-d, and the pretcrital -/ or-d 
oi" the Tamil, Canarese, Malayalain, Tulu, Sconi GOnd, and 
otiier Dcklianic idioms. 

Nor must we in this discussion omit the fact that in 
tiie Turanian languages, even the stem-words are not al- 
ways preserved in their integrity. Thus the Magyar 

1. lel-em = I find .... is in Esthonian 1. lei-an 

2. lel-ed — — 2. lei-ad 

3. lel-i — — 3. lei-ab 

1. lel-juk — — 1. lei-am e 

2. lel-itek — — 2. lei-ate 

3. lel-ik — — 3. lei-awad 

Here the verbal radix is LEL: but in Esthonian it 
has suffered phonetic corruption into LEI — to which 
latter theme the pronominal suffixes attach themselves as 
if to an original root. And the Magyar itself furnishes 
further instances of the same thing. Thus fekudni = to 
lie, aludni = to sleep, venni = to buy, and menni = to 
go furnish the root-forms fekiid, alud, ven and men: and 
yet, notwithstanding all this, in the present and preterite 
tenses of these verbs, — not the true radix, but a phone- 
tic corruption of it, is exhibited. Thus : — 
Present 





Radix 


Radix 


Radix 


Radix 




(fekiid) 


(alud) 


(ven) 


(m e n) 


1. 


feksz-em 


alsz-om 


vesz-ek 


megy-ek 


2. 


feksz-el 


alsz-ol 


vesz-el 


megy-sz 


3. 


feksz-ik 


alsz-ik 


vesz-en 


me-n 


1. 


feksz-unk 


alsz-unk 


vesz-iink 


megy-iink 


2. 


feksz-etek 


alsz-otok 


vesz-tek 


men-tek 


3. 


feksz-enek 


alsz-anak 


vesz-nek 


men-nek 







Preterite 




1. 


fekv-em 


alv-am vev-ek 


raen-ek 


2. 


fekv-el 


alv-al vev-el 


ID en-el 


3, 


fekv-ek 


alv-ek vev-e 


men-e 


1. 


fekv-enk 


alv-auk vev-enk 


men-enk 


2. 


fekv-etek 


alv-atok vev-etek 


men-etek 


3. 


fekv-enek 


alv-anak vev-enek 


men-enek 



It may be stated indeed that some monosyllabic ver- 
bal roots in the Magyar deviate from their radical forms 
so far as to show a new root for nearly each tense. Si- 
milarly the primitive roots jdv = to come, loo :=. to shoot, 
szov = to weave, hiv = to call, and sziv = to draw, 
lose the terminal consonant of the radix, appearing in the 
infinitive as jo-ni, Id-ni, szo-ni, hi-ni, and szi-ni. So also 
the Causative forms of en-ni, hinni and venni are eletm 
not entetni, hitelni not h'wtetjii, vetetni and not venfetni. 

And this phenomenon appears elsewhere in the Tura- 
nian group. In the Tartar languages of Southern India, 
for example', verbal roots not infrequently experience in- 
tromutation and phonetic corruption similarly to the intromu- 
tation and detrition of radical elements which are admitted 
to characteristically affect the radices of the Aryan and 
Semitic languages. Thus the Telugu evinces a tendency 
to reject or soften away consonants from the middle of 
words — even though such consonants should belong to 
the root. Thus the Tamil neruppu = fire, elumbu = a 
bone, porndu = time, and marundu = medicine appear iu 
Telugu as nippu, emmu, poddu , and mandu. Similarly a 
radical consonant sometimes disappears from words in the 
Tamil, while it has been retained in the Telugu. Someti- 
mes too in the Dravidiau vernaculars the vowels as well 
as the consonants undergo mutation. Thus this shortening 



8 

or modification of llie vowel ol tlie root occurs in certain 
Tamil preterites. For example, «e = to burn becomes in 
the preterite — not 0(7 gundu or vrmdu, but vcndu; nogu 
(Root no) = to be in pain, becomes in the preterite — 
not no gundu or nondu, but ndndu ; and hun = to see, 
not kandu, but kandu. A lengthening of the vowel also 
occurs in certain substantives derived from verbs, as mln 
= a star from mln = lo shine, with which compare cIth 
'cdc = speech from ci=a^ vac. In Canarese and Telugu 
but especially in the latter, the final consonant of the root 
is usually either euphonically commuted or wholly elided : 
and as it appears to us , any such change , even although 
due to laws of euphony, has a real grammatical value, — 
for doubtless, laws of euphony must explain many of the 
radical intromutations of the Aryan and Semitic idioms, which, 
upon that account are not, and cannot be considered as 
any the less instances of phonetic corruption. Thus in 
Telugu eddu =z an ox and penchu z=z to increase occur 
instead of the Tamil erdu or erudu, and perukku or pe- 
rutichu. Also among the disyllabic roots there frequently 
occurs a softening away of the middle consonant, as when 
canarese dogal-u = skin , pes'ar a name, togap-pu ;=: a col- 
lection appear in Tamil as tol, per, and top-pu. These 
examples also illustrate the tendency to monosyllabism al- 
ready referred in the foregoing pages. 

And the sort of changes here indicated occur also in 
other Tartar idioms. In the Tungusic and Lapponic, it is 
interesting to observe, how the pronominal roots undergo 
intromutatiou in the oblique cases: thus, the Tungusic bi 
= I (pi. bu = we), shows in the oblique cases of the 
singular the theme min, and in the oblique cases of the 
plural the theme mun. So in like manner the Mandshu 



9 

bi z=: 1 shows an intromutation of the radix in its plur. 
nom. be, while in the oblique cases of the singular the 
theme is min and in the corresponding cases of the plural 
men. Thus too the Lapponic mon = I, don = thou, son 
== he appear in their oblique cases as mu, du, and su, 
and in the plural as mi, di, si; while the relative pro- 
nouns gi =■ who, and mi = ichat appear in their oblique 
cases as gae, and ma. — Lappish Grammatik, udarbeitet 
efter den finmarkiske Hovedialekt eller Sproget af I. A. Friis. 
Cand. TheoL, pp. 59, 70, Christiana 1856. Similarly in the 
Lapponic verb laet = to be, we have as marked an ex- 
ample of phonetic corruption of the radix as in any Aryan 
vocable that could be cited. If as Friis states the stem- 
form of this verb is laekke, we are safe in affirming that 
it has suffered mutilation throughout nearly the whole of 
its paradigm. But premising that that is the root in Lappo- 
nic as in other Ugro-Tartar idioms, which remains after 
the removal of the sign of the infinitive — even then the 
root-form thus furnished admits indisputably of intromuta- 
tive modification. The third person singular of the pre- 
sent tense of the Indicative mood is lae, which corresponds 
as in other Turanian languages with the form, which re- 
mains after the removal of the sign of the infinitive. Thus 
infinitive lae-t, the -t being formative gives lae as in the 
third person singular of the Indicative present. 

But even this shorter theme in lae is not maintained 
uniformly throughout the conjugation of this verb. In the 
first pers. dual of the Indicative present, it is changed to 
le; thus le-dne = we two are, not lae-dne. In the Pre- 
terite first person singular, and third pers. pi., the form, 
which Friis declares to be the radix appears as leg, not 
la^k; while in several imperative forms, the theme is nei- 
ther leg, nor laek, but lek. In the optative present lae the 



10 

|)rol»al)lc root appears modified from lae to //. Thus in tlie 

Lappouic ol' uorllieru Fiiimark, >ve have in the Optative: 

Singular 1. li-lci-m ... J would he 

2. li-fci-k 

3. Ii-(ci 
Dual 1. li-f'ci-me 

2. li-lci-de 

3. li-fci-ga 
Plural 1. li-fci-mek 

2. li-fci-dek 

3. li-fci 

And, in the Lapponic of Sweden, the radix takes yet ano- 
ther form that namely of lu, as: 

Singular 1. lu-li-b I would be 

2. lu-li-h 

3. lu-li 
Dual 1. lu-li-men 

2. lu-li-ten 

3. lu-li-kaii 
Plural 1. lu-li-me 

2. lu-li-te 

3. lu-li-n 

Thus far then it is clearly demonstrated that the diffe- 
rence between the so-called agglutinative languages, and 
those which are inflexional is one rather of degree than of 
kind. Phonetic corruption has, it is true, operated more 
extensively upon the Aryan than the Turanian group: but 
at the same time there is no sufficient reason for their se- 
paration morphologically. The consciousness of the roots, 
which is said to mark off the agglutinative from the in- 
flexional stage, is found in many cases not to have been 
preserved. The Turanian roots are not exempt from the 
Semitico-Aryan intromutations they have been operated 



u 

upon only in a less degree by phonetic corruption. And, 
therefore, the so-called agglutinative idioms are agglutina- 
tivo-inflexional rather than strictly and exclusively agglu- 
tinative. Consequently also the division of the history of 
language into the three stages already described as Radi- 
cal, Agglutinative, a.iid Inflexional appears to us to be open 
to valid objection. 

What then, we come to enquire, are the epochs, 
through >yhich language has passed? Through how many 
clearly defined periods has it been brought? The answer 
is easy. Upon historical evidence we have it that lan- 
guage has passed through two distinct stages, to which, by 
inference, a third or rather a first is added. 

If the Sanscrit or Zend be compared with their mo- 
dern derivates, it will be seen that they respectively differ 
from each other in their grammatical tendencies. The 
same difference is also observable between English and 
Anglo-Saxon, Danish and Icelandic, Dutch and Old Fri- 
sian, and New High German and Maeso-Gothic. And the 
difference, when exactly defined is this, — that while the 
Sanscrit, Zend and Gothic are in the synthetic stage, their 
more modern derivates have passed Jnto that named ana- 
lytic. 

In the second or Synthetic stage of a language, ideas 
are conveyed inflexionally rather than circumlocutionally. 
The genius of a language in this stage of its development 
favours the formation of conjugational and declensional sy- 
stems. Thus in the Tamanac Indian jarer-bac-ure = / 
carry is formed, according to Wilh. von Humboldt , of the 
root jare, — (Infin, jareri =z to carry) ; of bac or uac, — (In- 
fiu. uacschiri =l to be); and of the personal pronoun ure 
=^ 1. In the same language uteripipra = / will not go, 
or more literally I-to-go-choose-not, is an expression com- 



12 

])OUii(ie(l of ulcri zzz to go -f- 'pi (liifm. ipi-ri = lo cituose) 
-\- pra = not. 

Similarly in tlio (Hiayiiia Indian dialect spoken in the 
province ol" New Andalusia, ulechire or, / shall yo = lite- 
rally the pronoun u =^ I -{- le (shortened from the radi- 
cal ule =z lo yo) zzz go -{- chire = the conj. also, or 
then; and punpuectopuchcmaz i= thou art fat in body or 
literally, flesh-for-fal-lhuuart is com\)omu\Gd oi' pun = flesh, 
puec = for, topuc/ic =■■ fat, m z= thon, and az = the 
theme of the Chayma verb substantive. And to such an 
extent is this synthesis carried that the Chayma and Ta- 
manac verbs exhibit an enormous complication of teuses; 
while even to the rudest of the American aboriginal ver- 
naculars is this synthetic structure so preserved — that 
the whole of these New World idioms have not inappro- 
piatily received the characteristic denomination of „Poly- 
synthetic". The Coptic in like manner shows a decided 
tendency to synthesis, not only in its conjugational system, 
but also in its formation of words. Thus metrepherpetou 
= malice, is composed of five elements, and may be ren- 
dered as „the quality [met] of a subject {reph), which makes 
[er] the thing which is [pet), evil (om)." The first element 
also appears in the words metouro = a kingdom (from 
met and ouro :== a king), and met matoi = an army from 
a composition of the same prefix with the word matoi = a 
soldier. The second element appears in the words rephnau 
:= an inspector, and rephshemshe = a minister, the prefix 
in question having been compounded in the one case with 
the verb nau == to see, and in the other with UJUUJG 
shemshe = to minister. In Bashmouric this prefix appears 
as leph. Hence '^eq'^g^en lephtihep is the Bashmouric for 
judge and contains three distinct elements (1) the forma- 
tive prefix leph signifying the subject of an action; (2) ti a 



13 

verbal prefix == to do at this present time ; and (3) the 
root hep = judgment (in Coptic hap). Similarly in Coptic 
Aid.ri'^^d.Ti maentihap = a tribunal in synthesized from ma 
= a place, e« = a genitival postfix , f i = a verbal prefix 
to do or be doing; and fourthly a finally hap = a sub- 
stantival radix signifying judgment. In the Turkish also 
this tendency to synthesis is markedly exhibited. Thus the 
Turk in his conjugatioual scheme expresses the ideas of 
negation, possibility or potentiality, causality, passivity, re- 
flexiveness, and reciprocity — not by separate words, but 
by means of inflexional increments. For example, seo-mek 
= to love becomes by means of the increment ^ me, see- 
me-mek = not to love; and by means of the increments 
*s ehme , sev-eh-me-mek = to be unable to love. By the 
increment .j> der causality is expressed as in sev-der-mek 
= to cause to love, and sev-der-eh-me-mek = to be not 
able io cause to love: so also by the increment J H the 
Turk expresses passivity, — by tji. ish reciprocity, — and 
by ^ in reflexiveness. Thus sev-il-mek = to be loved, 
or negatively sev-il-me-mek = not to be loved, or causa- 
tively sev-il-der-mek = to cause to be loved. So also 
sev-ish-mek = to love reciprocally , or with the passive 
increment sev-ish-el-mek = to be loved reciprocally; or 
with the increments of passivity, causality, and impossibility, 
we have sev-ish-el-der-eh-me~mek =^ to be unable to cause 
to be loved reciprocally. Similarly sev-in-mek = to love 
one's self, and sev-en-der-eh-me-mek is to be unable to 
cause to love one's self. 

Now in all these cases inflexional increments are em- 
ployed in preference to analytic or metaphrastic forms. 
The relations of nouns — the comparison of adjectives, 
and even the relation of subject and predicate are by 



14 

idioms in tlio Synthetic stap;o expressed inflexionally. In 
the Greeiilandic, which hy verbal iiillexions expresses the 
accusatival rclatious of the |)ronouns there are , in conse- 
quence, not fewer than twenty-seven forms for every tense. 
And as to case relations even the Latin expresses as many 
as six, the Sanscrit as many as eight, and the Finnish the 
extraordinary number of fifteen. Now it is manifest that 
a language, which in its expression of the relations of 
nouns, can construct not fewer than fifteen cases, is in a 
high degree synthetic — is, in fact, typical of its class. 

Languages like the Finnish, Lapponic, Basque, Tur- 
kish, and Hungarian, evidently prefer a terminational me- 
thod of expressing thought — where it is not impracti- 
cable. And such being the case — they, and languages 
of like psychologico-linguistic tendency, as evidently per- 
tain to the epoch denominated Synthetic. 

But in the modern languages, properly so called, a 
reverse tendency is observable. Preference is shown, not 
for inflexional, but for analytic forms. Thus instead of 
the Old Frisian sMp-a = of the ships, and skip-um = to 
the ships, which are inflexional expressions, the modern 
Dutch has van de schepen, and aan de schepen. 

In brief, languages in the third or Analytic epoch of 
development prefer circumlocutional to inflexional or ag- 
glutinative forms of utterance. Inflexions may not have 
entirely disappeared ; but they are nevertheless obsolescent. 
Disappear they must and will — at least ultimately — and 
for this reason that the genius of a language, when it has 
entered upon this third or analytic stage of its develop- 
ment, is decidedly repugnant to grammatical forms. The 
modern English, for example, is almost as entirely destitute 
of all grammar proper as the language of China. A lan- 
guage in this last stage of its evolution shows a strong 



15 

and characteristic tendency to discontinue all inflexional 
modes of expression. Prepositions and auxiliary verbs 
take the place of cases and tenses: syntactical conventions 
supplant the older linguistic or grammatical forms: agglu- 
tinations are resolved, — inflexions analysed ; — until hu- 
man speech is made, in its last reduction, closely to re- 
semble, — as in the case of the Chinese, what it must 
have been in the very genesis of its history. Its vocables 
are not pure uucompounded radicals, it is true, but per- 
haps that is all that remains, by which to distinguish a 
perfectly analytic from a perfectly radical and primordial 
idiom. 

A first or Radical stage has, however, been here as 
elsewhere alluded to; but the existence of such an epoch 
of development is a matter purely of inference. No known 
language belongs to such epoch. The Chinese has indeed 
been referred to as a Radical language; but only by mis- 
take. While professors Max MUller, and Benloew speak 
with confidence a favour of the radical structure of this 
language; — Jacob Grimm speaks only with hesitation; — 
and Wilhelni Schott — one of the very highest authorities 
upon Asiatic philology, speaks to an exactly opposite ef- 
fect. We have already shown that the Chinese is rather 
an Analytic than a Radical language, since its glossary 
shows the extensive operation of phonetic corruption. It 
is therefore, only by inference that a Radical stage is 
presumed to have had existence. 

It is evident, for example that the inflexions which 
are met with among the Terminational or Synthetic lan- 
guages are due for their formation to the agglutination 
of distinct words, which, in an earlier period, must have 
had an independent existence. Thus the modal, temporal, 
causative, frequentative, desiderative and other verbal in- 



16 

crenicnts were probably (though not certainly) in the first 
instances independent vocables, which have in the course 
of lime lost their original and indej)endent character. It 
seems highly probable, therefore, — although not absolu- 
tely demonstrable, lliat there existed a first or Radical 
stage which furnished the elements out of which arose the 
complicated so-to-say kaleidoscopic linguistic combinations 
of the next succeeding epoch. 

In the first period all is in solution: in the second — 
crystallization has ensued : and in the third and last de- 
liquescence. 

There are, then, three epochs in the history of lan- 
guage. 

First, — the Radical Epoch, in which all words were 
radicals being monosyllabic, polysyllabic, or both, and 
which as such admitted only of syntactical modification. 

Secondly — we have a Synthetic or Terrninational 
Epoch, in which by means of verbal synthesis the various 
declensional, conjugational , and other inflexional systems 
have taken their rise. 

And thirdly, we have an Analytic or Mefaphrasfic 
Epoch, in which the grammatical systems of the second 
period are decomposed in to their component elements or 
equivalents. And, morphologically considered, the English 
language pertains, as we have already remarked, to this 
third or Analytic period. 



CHAPTER II. 

THE TRANSITION OF ANGLO-SAXON INTO 
ENGLISH. 

The transition of Anglo-Saxon into English proceeded 
by several successive stages. Thus Anglo-Saxon became 
what is called Semi -Saxon; — Serai -Saxon passed into 
Old English, — into Middle English, — and Middle Eng- 
lish into New or Modern English. These changes, however, 
did not take place otherwise than very gradually and al- 
most imperceptibly. The stages respectively are not marked 
off from each other by very precisely determinable dates. 
But yet when compared at intervals of something like a 
century, or more, — it will be easy to discern and de- 
scribe the nature of the changes actually effected. These, 
as will here after be seen, relate chiefly to orthography, 
inflexion , and the introduction of new forms. 

Anglo-Saxon. From about A. D. 450 to A. D. 1150, 
the language of England was Anglo-Saxon, — the chief 
authors being Alfred, Caedmou the Anglo-Saxon Milton, 
the ., Saxon Chroniclers", Elfric, and the unknown poet who 
sang of the exploits of ,, Beowulf, king of the Weder Geats." 

Semi-Saxon. From circa A. D. 1150 to A. D. 1250, 
the language of England was not Anglo-Saxon, but Semi- 
Saxon, and the principal works written during this stage 
of the language were — the ,, History of King Lear and 

2 



18 

his Dqughlers", ihe „Poem of Layamon", llie laller |)arl of 
llie „Saxon Chronicle" and the „Ormnlutn." IVIarsh , ho- 
>ve>ver, regards llie Onmiliim as Kiiolisli than as Semi- 
Saxon. 

Old English. From circa A. D. 1250 lo llic dealli of 
Edward 11. (A. D. 1327), the language ol England was 
Old English, and the jjrincipal works pertaining to this 
stage of our tongue were — the „Vision of Piers Plowman" 
supposed to have been written circa A. I). 13G2 by one 
Robert Langton a monk; the ^Romance of Havelok the 
Dane;" the „Poems" of Robert Mannynge: the „(;harter 
of Henry III. (A, D. 1258); — and some other literary 
monumeuta. 

Middle English. From ci7'ca A. D. 1327 to circa A. 
D. 1558 the language of England was Middle English, the 
principal Middle English writers being Chaucer, Wycliffe, 
Mandevil, Lydgate, and Caxton. 

Modern or New English. From the reign of Henry 
VIII. up to the present time, the language of England was 
the Modern or New English. This period is pre-eminently 
rich in every species of literature. 

The following are some of the chief points of contrast 
and comparison between Anglo-Saxon and Semi-Saxon. 

1. The forms se, seo of the Anglo-Saxon article be- 
gin to occur less frequently, or are, in other words, obso- 
lescent forms in the Semi-Saxon stage. The ablative form 
|)y t= by, with, or from the is also in this second stage, 
obsolescent. 

2. The Semi-Saxon as contrasted with the Anglo-Saxon 
is marked by the shortening, and in some cases by the 
apocopatiou of terminal vowels. Thus in the „nistory of 
King Lear", in what is perhaps the older version, it is 
said: — > 



19 

„Bladud hafde ene soiie 
Leir was ihaten" 
where son-e occurs for the Anglo-Saxon accusative son-n. 
Again, in the same production „m pan'' occurs for „in 
{)on-e" by apocopation of -e, and change of the included 
vowel from o to a. Similarly Semi-Saxon puts — paet ylc 
for the older and completer form ftaet ylce: and dag-es 
for the Anglo-Saxon plural daeg-as. 

3. Another characteristic of the Semi-Saxon is the 
confusion of the plurals of the several Anglo-Saxon de- 
clensions. Thus nouns which in A. S. are pluralized in 
-as as munac-as are sometimes pluralized in S. S, in -an 
as munac-an: and nouns which were properly pluralizable 
in -an are upon the contrary frequently pluralized in -s 
or-es, as steorr-es for A. S. steorr-an. 

The Anglo-Norman plural in -s or -es may have in 
part facilitated this process. 

4. The replacement of the A. S. dative in -m by a 
dative in -w is also characteristic of Semi-Saxon. Thus 
in the „Hi«tory of King Lear and his Daughters", it is said 
of the town build by the king: — 

,,Kaer-Leir hehte {)e burh. 

Leof heo wes f^an kinge, 

|>a we, an ure leod-quide, 

Leir-chestre clepiad, 

Geare a f)an holde dawon" 
where the expression — „a f)aw holde dawo/i" would be 
represented in Anglo-Saxon as „an \}-A.m eald-?<m daeg-w/«." 
The dative in -m has been replaced by a Semi-Saxon da- 
live in -n. Compare the A. S. adverb htcilum (a dat.) with 
hwilon the form it has assumed in the S. S. stage. 

5. We have already seen that the Semi-Saxon shows 
a confused use of the several Anglo-Saxon puralic suffor- 

2* 



20 

iiiiilivi's: — a fact, >vliicli must be irganled as clearly iii- 
tlicalive of the breaking,- up of the Aiig;lo-Haxon declensio- 
nal sysleni. Hence, as we have now to remark, llie obso- 
lescence ol' ihe (lalive and ablative cases. 

6. Another charactcrislic oC the Semi-Saxon is the ob- 
solescence of the dual forms. In A. S., the only duali- 
zable forms were the pronouns of the first and second 
persons. Hence the forms toil = we two, git = yon tiro. 
In S. S. these forms were fast passing away. In Old 
English they had entirely disappeared. And hence from 
their occurrence in the „Onnulum" it would seem not- 
withstanding the Hon. G. P. Marsh's view to the contrary, 
that the Ormulum was Semi-Saxon rather than Old English. 

7. Ill Semi-Saxou, moreover, besides the apocopalions 
already noticed, there occurred 

a. An apocopation of the infinitival termination in -». 
Thus S. S. nemn-i for A. S. nemn-an. 

b. An apocopation of the past participle of the Strong 
conjugation in -en. Thus S. S. i-hol-e for A. S. ge-hdt- 
en , or hat-en. 

8. It is also noticeable that in Semi-Saxon the proper 
gerundial formative in -anne or -enne became obsolete being 
replaced by the infinitive form — in -au. Thus S. S. to 
luf-ian for A. S. to lufig-enne. 

9. In Semi-Saxon, the indicative plural termination in 
-a^ passed in like manner into obsolescence, being repla- 
ced by the subjunctival termination in on — changed however, 
for the most part into -en. Thus hi clep-en =: they call 
for hi clypi-a^ : so also hed gunn-en for heo gunn-aS. 

10. There is also observable in Semi-Saxon a ten- 
dency to phonetic changes of considerable importance. 
The period was also marked by a somewhat unsettled 
orthography. 



21 

Differentia between Semi-Saxon and Old English. When 
Semi-Saxou had developed into Old Euglish, the following 
among other points of contract presented themselves. 

1. While in S, S. the forms se, sed of the article were 
obsolescent — the form |)aet being chiefly in use, — in 
0. E. all three forms became quite obsolete, being replaced 
by the form ^e. 

2. In 0. E., the Semi-Saxon dative form in -o}i (A. S. 
-urn) finally disappears, the preposition to with a plural in 
s being used instead. A dative singular in -e is never- 
theless retained. 

3. The genitive in -es is also generally omitted in 0. 
E. after the preposition „of": — generally, we say, be- 
cause this was not invariably the case. Thus in Lawrance 
Minot (A. D. 1333—1352): 

„Now God of might-e5 mast." 
And further it is noteworthy that the genitive in -es co- 
mes in 0. E. to be exclusively employed for all nouns 
whatsoever. Thus 0. E. gen. nam-es for A. S. nam-an: — 
0, E. spi^ec-es for A. S. spraec-e. 

Tlie genitive plural in -cna was also ejected, as 0. E. 
eyes' for A. S. edg-ena; tung-es for tung-ena. 

The genitive plural in -;• or -ra, although existing in 
0. E. as heora = theirs, alter = of all, was nevertheless 
decadent. 

4. In Old English all A. S. plurals in -a, -u, and -an 
have finally disappeared. Thus son-s for S. S. Son-an and 
A. S. sun-a: — 0. E. trees for A. S. treow-u; 0. E. 
tong-es for A. S. tung-an. 

5. The dual forms wit, and gil arc in 0. E. totally 
obsolete. 

6. In Old English the pronominal forms hed, hi, hir, 
heom, hem etc., are current, although in the state of ob- 



22 

solcscoiice, as in llic (bllovviiift- alliloralive cou|)lel from 
IMiiiol: - 

„VVilh hir tellies and liir tags 
Of Z>rca(l full y-crammed." 

7. Participles in -andc or -ende take in 0. K. the 
tcriiiiiialious -ung or-ing. Thus in the Proclamation of 
Henry III, to the people of Huntingdonshire — „Send 1 
grel~ing" where 0. E. gret-ing is for A. S. and S. S. 
gretende. 

8. In Old Englisli many preterites are strong which 
subsequently became weak as dahe or dalf, afterwards 
deloed; 0. E. wop and wex^ which in later English still 
appeared as loepl and waxed. 

9. in 0. E. the infinitival termination in -u disappears 
after the preposition „?o". 

10. The plural indicative form in -aS is replaced by 
the subjunctival pi. form in -on even more completely than 
in the Semi-Saxon period, although even in 0. E. it will 
occasionally occur — as indeed it does as late as the time of 
Shakespeare. Thus Robert of Gloucester writes — „Ac 
lowe men hold-e//i to Englyss." Usually, however the re- 
placement occurred. Thus in Piers Plowman the phrases: 
— „playd-en full seld": — „feign-e7i hem fantasies" etc. 

11. In 0. E. the ad of the third person singular is 
more generally replaced by -S. as he tells for he tel-^, 
and he loves for he luf-a^. 

Differentia between 0. E. and M. E. As to the Middle 
English it is distingnished from English in the earlier sta- 
ges principally by the absence of certain grammatical 
forms. 

1. In M. E. the article is destitute of inflexion, the 
indefinite form t)e being employed alike in all cases. In 



23 

0. E. upon the contrary fyan, f)enne, paere, and pam "were 
current forms. 

2. The M. E. substantives lose all their inflexions. 
All genitive terminations disappear except the genitive in 
-s. The 0. E. genitive plural in -r or -m becomes quite 
obsolete. The analytic expression of all occurs for the 0. 
E. all-cr, etc. The accusative terminations also entirely 
evanesce: and in a similar manner the 0. E. dative in -e 
becomes obsolete. 

3. Certain pronominal forms become obsolete. Thus 
heo, is replaced by sed = she — the feminine singular of 
the definite article in Anglo-Saxon. The plural forms hi, 
heora (hire) , and hem are replaced by the words they, 
their, them. And here it may be remarked that the dati- 
ves of the pronouns of the third person were used as ac- 
cusatives, while the true accusative forms evanesced. Thus 
hine, hi, and hit are respectively replaced by him, her and 
him: and the plural accusative hi was in like manner re- 
l)laced first by its proper dative him or in the 0. E. or- 
thography hem, and then finally by the dative plural of 
the article, namely, t)am or in M. and N. E. orthography 
Ihetn. 

The obsolete forms of the definite article came in this 
way to be ai)plied to new uses, and in this — their new 
application, were no longer obsolete. It is by a similar 
process that ille, illaj illud came in Latin to be used not 
only in its proper character as a demonstrative, but also 
in a new sense as a personal pronoun of the third per- 
son. In the Danish a similar replacement occurred, not 
indeed in the singular, but in the plural of the pronoun 
of the third person. Thus : — 



24 



masc. 
N. han := he 
G. bans 
A. ham (really a datice) 

Cein. 
N, hun . . . she 
\ G. hendes 
A. liendc 
Plural 
ni. et 1'. 
N. de 
G. deres 

A. dem (really a dative). 
In the modern Dutch a replacement of the original per- 
sonal pronoun of the third person has occurred in the no- 
minative case only of the feminine singular, and in the 
genitive only of the masculine singular; while in the plu- 
ral, replacement has occurred in all the three genders, but 
only in the nominative case. Thus, in the following de- 
clension of the pers. pron. of the third person — zij (cf. 
A. S. seo; Germ, sie; Eng. she), — zijns (cf. Germ, sein), 
— and zij = Ihey (pi. for all three genders) — are not 
original constituent elements of the pronoun in question, 
but are parts of the definite article employed to supply de- 
clensional gaps due to the partial obsolescence of such 
original personal pronoun 

In Old Frisian the replacement here indicated has not 
transpired the 3rd pers. pi. they being represented, not by 
any form of the article as zij, sie etc., but by the original 
form hja — it being homologous with the A. S. hi, the 
Erse he, and the Cornish-Armorican hi. 

4. In Middle English the forms mtn and pin are obsoles- 
cent — the forms w?^ and % being of more frequent occurrence. 



25 

5. Middle English is further characterised by a prefe- 
rence for weak preterites. In Old and Middle English too 
the Anglo-Saxon and Semi-Saxon plural forms synd, syn- 
don are replaced by ben and beeth. 

6. In M. E. the past participle ge-wes-en becomes quite 
obsolete, being supplanted by the form been. 

7. The subjunctive forms be, been (A. S. bed, beon) 
were in M. E. substituted for the older subjunctival forms 
of the substantive verb , namely waere, waeron. Thus in 
Chaucer 

„That they mote sing-en and be-en light" 
where be-en is the Anglo-Saxon plural subjunctive form 
beon. 

8. In M. E., the infinitive be-en (A. S. beon and Ge- 
rund, to beonne] is obsolescent. Its use is occasional, 
however, in Chaucer and other M. E. writers. Thus in 
the jjRomaunt of the Rose" : 

„For there is neither busk nor hay 
In May that it n'ill shrowded been.'' 
Where be-en is an infinitive representing either the A. S. 
inf. beon or the Gerund to beonne with the usual change 
of -anne, -onne, or -enne to -en. 

Usually, however, in Middle English both the infiniti- 
val termination in -en, and the infinitivo-Gerundial termi- 
nation in -nne have disappeared. 

9. In Old and Middle English alike, and even in Se- 
mi-Saxon, there are observable processes of phonetic refi- 
nement, and of orthographic change, which have ultimately 
effected a total change in the physiognomy of the lan- 
guage. In Semi-Saxon the dissolution of the inflexional 
system of the Anglo-Saxon, was almost more than inci- 
pient. And once begun, the process went rapidly on to 
its completion. 



2G 

AcM? or modern Knyiisk. In llio New or Modern 
English (ill grammar proper has lolally disappeared. „The 
last characlrrislic ol' a grammar (lillerenl from thai of the 
present English is the veri)ai |)liiral in -en as toe lell-en, 
ye lell-en^ they lell-en.'' And as this disappeared from 
current use in the reign of Henry VIII., the Middle Eng- 
lish may be said to have passed in that reign into Eng- 
lish called New or Modern. „To tell you my opinion" 
>vrole Ben iousoii „1 am persuaded that the lack here of 
will be found a great blemish to our tongue." In Bcu 
Jonson's time, therefore, the plural form in -en had evi- 
dently become antiquated. It was frequently emj)Ioyed, it 
is true, by Spenser (A. D. 1553 — 1559) — an Elizabe- 
than writer; ])ut its employment by Spenser was due solely 
to that poet's liking for archaic forms of diction. And to 
this penchanl of the poet must be attributed the fact that 
Spenser's style was Middle English, although he himself 
was a writer of the Modern period. 



CHAPTER III. 

TRACES OF THE ANGLO-SAXON GRAMMAR 
IN MODERN ENGLISH. 

Although, as has just been remarked, all granimar 
proper has disappeared from the English, — although in 
other words, it has, as a language passed from the In- 
flexional into the Analytic stage of linguistic development; 
yet is it an interesting fact, that our present English re- 
tains some traces of its former grammatical structure. 

1. In forms like ough-t, tha-t, i-t (cf. A. S. hi-t; Du. 
hi-t; Icel. hi-tl; 0. Frisian hi-t; M. Gothic i-ta\ athioar-t, 
wha-t, etc., — we have an ancient neuter postfix, said by 
many grammarians to be of Norse origin, but which is, in 
reality, found not only in both the Norse and the Teuto- 
nic languages of the Gothic, but also in many other lan- 
guages both Aryan and Extra- Aryan. This postfix in -/ 
Anglo-Saxon preserved exclusively in the declension of its 
pronouns as he, heo, hi-t, — he, she, it; se , seo , pae-t ; 
and liwa = who and neuter hwae-t = wha-t. In the 
Scandinavian idioms alone, however, is this neuter postfor- 
mative currently employed as such. Thus Dan. en god 
mand = a good man where mand is masculine; but e-t 
god-t barn =z a good child, where barn is neuter. Both 
the article and the adjective take the postfix in question. 

It is also more than possible that some of our sub- 



2S 

slaiilival and adverbial Corms in -/, t'spccially >vlieii deri- 
ved Irom verbs and adjectives, are also prlniilive neuters. 
Thus, Diin. rod-t —redness is from the adjective /•«(/= rt'^; 
Dan. Derliiier-blaa-t = Prussian blue from the adjective 
blaa =:z blue by the additioji of the neuter sunorinative. 
(lompare also such words as see-d, A. S. sae-d, Germ. 
saa-t, l)u. zaa-d and chi/-d, A. S. cil-d, Germ, kin-d, I)u. 
kin-d. 

2. In forms like on-ce, twi-ce, ihri-ce, hen-cc, when-ce, 
or according to the 0. E. orthography on-es, t>vi-es, thri-es, 
heann-es, whenn-es etc., we have the Anglo-Saxon geniti- 
val termination in -cs. Compare also such forms to>vard-s, 
by right-es, betime-s, eft-soon-s, unavvare-s, while-s. 

3. In forms like mi-ne, thi-ne, wood-en^ oak-en^ gold-en 
etc., we have the Anglo-Saxon genitive in -an or -n, pi. 
-cna. 

4. In forms like he-r (A. S. ki-rd), ou-r (A. S. u-re), 
you-r (A. S. edw-er) , thei-r (A. S, j)a-ra) — we have the 
Anglo-Saxon genitive in -r, -re, -er, pi. -ora or -ra. In 
the Provincial forms he-r-n ou-r-n, you-r-n, thei-r-n, the 
genitive in -n has been by excess of expression added to 
the genitive in -;•; while in the current forms ^e-r-s, ou-r-s, 
you-r-s, thei-r-s, the genitive in -s has been pleouastically 
added to the genitive in -/■. 

5. In forms like me in me Ihinks . nic-seems , hi-m 
the-m, who-m, seld-om, whil-om etc., we have the A. S, 
dative in -m pi. -m or -urn. The corresponding forms in 
A. S. were me; him; J)ara, or |)aem; hwam or hwaem; 
seld-an dative in -an cf. Germ, sell-en , Du. zeld-en] ; and 
hicil-um, or hwil-on. 

6. In the accusative form her we have the dative of 
heo, viz. hi-re, of which dative form he-re (A. S. he-r]; 



29 

the-re (A. S. ^aer [para) ; whe-re — A. S. hwaer [hwar] 

— are further examples. 

7. In forms like tlie-u — A. S. {)Oune ; when — A. S. 
hwaenne; twai-n — A. S. twegen; tha-n which is etyrao- 
logically the same word with the-n: — we have traces of 
the Anglo-Saxou accusative in -an, ~na or -ne. 

8. In why — A. S. hiDij we have the ablative of who 

— A. S. hwd. In the word „fAe" in such phrases as „the 
more'-' — „the better — in Anglo-Saxon />«/' tnd — py bet; 
and in the Ormulum „th-i ma'' and „te batlre": — we 
have an ablative of the article. The ^the'' derived, as in 
this case, from f)y' and the „the'^ derived from the inde- 
clinable pronoun jje — are quite distinct. 

9. In Anglo-Saxon the nominative and accusative pi. 
of the indefinite inflexion of the adjective terminated in -e : 
and this form is pretty generally preserved in Old and 
Middle English. Thus singular all pi. all-e. The following 
are examples. 

a. A good man bringeth forth god-e thingis of good 
„tresore". — Wycliffe. 

b. And his-e disciples conieii and token his „body" 
— Wycliffe. 

c. „And all-e we that ben in this aray 
And maken all this lamentation 

We losten all-e our husbondes at that louu" — 
Chaucer — Knighte's Tale. 
We may also add to these the following examples. Thus 
in Latimer's IlIrd sermon occurs the following passage: 

a. There were, sayelh St. John multi ex principibus 
qui crediderunt in eum"; — „many-e of the 
chyef-e meune believed in hym." Doo ye se 
any boddy follow hym but begerly-e fishers, 
and surh-e as have nothynge to take to?" 



30 

III Sir David IJndsay tliorc also occurs this passage: 
I). „For lyrst Airllit on the fresch~e fcildis, the iiolt 
maid iioyis vitht many loud Ion." 
A{>aiu ill Sir John Mandevil in the VII chapter en- 
tilled — „0r the Pilgriinages in Jerusalem and of the Holy 
Places there aboute," — written circa A. D. 1400 — the 
subjoined citations. 

c. This contree and loud of Jerusalem hath ben in 
many dyvers-e nacones hondes .... that is to 
sayne, of Jewes, of Chananees, — Assiryenes, 
Perses, Medaynes, Macedoynes, of Grekes, Rq- 
maynes, of Chrlsten-e-men, of Sarrazines, Barba- 
ryeues, Turkes, Tartaryenes, and of many-e 
other-e dycers-e nacyons. And now have the 
hethen-e men holden that land in her bonds XL. 
zer and more." 

d. „Bawdewyn, and other-e crislen-e kyngs of Jeru- 
salem." 

So also in the couplet of Lawrence Minot A. D. J 333 
— 1352. 

e. „It seemed he was feared for strokes 

When he did fell his great-e oakes." 

And it may be here remarked that of this nominative 
and accusative plural in -e , we have probably a remnant 
in the word thes-e. Here the -s is radical not inflexional 
as appears from the Anglo-Saxon jjas with its singular 
forms {)es, {)eds, {)is. The probability then is that the suf- 
fixed -e is the AngJo-Saxon adjective plural of the indefi- 
nite inflexion. 

10. In the forms child-er , yeoman-ry, rook-ery , we 
have the A, S. plural in -rii, -ra. In the word child-r-en, 
we have a pleonastic plural — compare the Anglo-Saxon 



31 

cild, pi. cild-ru or cild-ra; the Provincial form child-er ; 
and the Germ. pi. kind-er. In this plural in -r, there has, 
therefore, been added a pluralic -n. Lamh-er-en — an 
analogous form occurs in Wycliife. 

The Dutch has the pleonastic plurals kind-er-s, and 
in exact analogy with the modern English kind-er-en. 

11. In the pronoun you — A, S. eow, — we have a 
proper accusative, while in ye — A. S. ge, we have its 
nominative. 

12. In its, we have a form due to false analogy: 
for i-t (A. S. hi-t) is of course a neuter, to which the ge- 
nitival postfix -s has been annexed, in ignorance of its 
proper genitive his as such. (See Chapt. II). 

13. In the form my, we have an accusative — A. S. 
me, meh, mec, employed as a genitive. 

14. In comparatives as Bopp has shown, the funda- 
mental idea is that of a relation between tivo, in superla- 
tives that of a relation and comparison between many. 
Hence in forms like — - eilh-er, neith-er, wheth-er, oth-er 
ov-er, und-er, upp-er, loic-er, inn-er, out-er — we have 
true comparatives both in form and in sense. 

15. In the form worse we have apparently a compa- 
rative in -s, with which may be compared the M. G. comp. 
in -za, the Latin in ios , ius , the Bohemian and Polish in 
■ssj, -ssy, the Zend in -is, the Sanscrit in -iyas, and Vedic 
in -yas. 

Tiie existence of such forms as M. G. vairs-iza; 0. H. 
G. wirs-iro ; M. II. G. wirs-er would seem, however, to fa- 
vour an opposite conclusion , to wit , that the -s in worse 
was radical, not formative. 

Upon the other hand the O. Norse verri; Dan. vaerre, 
and Swed vdrre seem to indicate that the s is after all 



32 

inflexional: - in which case the M. CJ. cair-s-ha, — tlie 
0. IJ. G. wlv-s-iro, and the Al. II. (i. wlr-s-er, like the 
Provincial English iror-s-ar, — must he joj»ar(le(l as double 
coniparatiNcs. And this view is stren{»,lhene(l by the exi- 
stence of such forms as the 0. »S wir-so and the A. iS. 
ivyr-se, where there is no pleonasm. As to the two forms 
ol' comparison in -/• and -.v, they are linguistically identi- 
cal: — the form in -/• being- but a derivale from that in 
-s. Thus in Latin tlie form iuc/-ios is older than the form 
}nel-ior. 

16. Double comparatives are not uncommon. Thus 
nea-r-er is a double comparative. The positive was in 
Anglo-Saxon neah = nigh; the comparative uea-rre, ny-r 
or nea-r ; and the sujjerlative neh-st, — nyh-st, or next. 

17. In for-m-er, we have a comparative formed uj)on 
a superlative. In Anglo-Saxon se for-ma was a superla- 
tive, signifying the first or fore most. To this superlative, 
therefore, the comparatival postform -er has been annexed 
by false analogy, in the word in question. 

18. In whilst, betwi-xt , amid-st we have superlative 
forms. 

19. In hind-m-ost, in-m-ost, out-m-ost etc., we have 
double or pleonastic superlatives. In the Sanscr. papist ha- 
tama = xccxidrog, pessimus, we have a similar excess of 
expression. For superlatives in ist/ui (Ji. S. ost; Eng. and 
Germ, est) are occasionally treated as positives, and made 
to take the terminations tara for the comparative, and 
tama for the superlative, as: — pap-istha-tara , pap-istha- 
iama. The -m in such forms as for-m-ost, hind-m-ost etc. 
is a remnant of the Moeso-Gothic superlatival termination 
in -ema or -ma as fru-nia, hind-em a. Compare also the 
above cited Anglo-Saxon superlative for-ma. 



33 

20. Of such forms as furthermost, hindermost etc. 
two views may be taken: — 

a. That there is as Dr. Latham, Rask, and others hold, 
a true composition of the comparatives further, hinder with 
the superlative -most as further-most, hinder-most. 

h. That these are pleonastic superlatives having a 
comparative as theme thus further-m-ost, hinder-m-ost. The 
former view is the only tenable one. 

21. Among the verbs such forms as did the preterite 
of do, and hight — A. S. he-ht which has been identified 
with the Moeso-Gothic hai-hait = vocavi, — there is ge- 
nerally held to be a trace of the reduplicative perfect 
found in the Gothic, Pelasgic, and other idioms. The form 
did is supposed to be an altered form from di-do , the 
theoretic reduplicative perfect of do. In A. S. its chief 
presentments are pres. do; pret. dy-de; inf do-n; Ger. to 
dd-nne; pres. partic. do-nde ; and past participle {ge)-ddn. 

22. The termination -ing in the present participle is 
the -ung of Anglo-Saxon nouns, and is not in any way 
connected with the A. S. participial ending in -ende or 
-nde. The participle in English is therefore as to its form 
a verbal noun. Compare such Greek forms as o wv, ^ 
ovaa, TO oVj which show the participle under treatment as 
a noun. Id ov for example signifies the abstract prin- 
ciple of existence and is one of the names ascribed to 
the Deity. 

23. As to the adverbs, it may be remarked that in 
A. S., they were frequently formed from adjectives by the 
addition of -e , which in many instances was afterwards 
dropped. In some, however, it has been preserved as in 
wid-e, — originally an adverb derived from the Anglo- 
Saxon adjective wid = wide: and in sor-e — also origi- 
nally an adverb formed as above from the adjective sar. 



LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 



III (MiIn Knolisl. nilhr in A. S. 003 017 250 7 • 
MOW >>liollv ohsololc. (l(M'i\('(l by the aimexation of -e from 
(he Aiijnlo -Saxon adjoclive hracd = fjuiclt , rath. The 
theme of this word is preserved in our comparative rrt//«-er 

— in A. S. hrnc^-rc . ■ — hrnc^-or. 



